The literary man and the artist, however much inclined to be social rebels, prefer to stand aloof from the hurly-burly of these passionate shouters who do not seem to have learned discipline, however real may be the wrongs against which they fulminate. This is why your artist is so seldom a reformer, save in the way of his art; and this is why the artist is so often accused, though sometimes with justice, of aristocratic aloofness. The artist of the days of Savonarola, however much his soul may have revolted against Florentine licentiousness, must similarly have stared aghast at Savonarola's vandalism. The man of artistic temperament at a later period would find himself more in unison with the thought of Erasmus than with that of Luther. If he did not shrink from Luther's crudity of thought, that episode of the ink bottle would decide him.

I sometimes wonder if many reformers do not cherish their reforms rather as pride of intellect than as a moral conviction to which they owe certain duties and responsibilities. I have rarely heard of any reformer of wealth leaving bequests in his will for the furtherance of the doctrines he believed in. Men give wealth to colleges, to hospitals, to poor relief, to private and public charity, but nothing to the cause of social amelioration and reconstruction, though organs and methods of propaganda languish for want of means. I have heard men of

wealth depict in vivid colors the evils of discriminating and indiscriminating charity, and insist that nothing short of the abolition of the present social system could permanently benefit mankind, but to the first cause they gave generously and to the latter grudgingly. A few millionaires have distributed in endowments tenfold greater sums than were ever given to the cause of social reform, estimating the proportion relatively to the means of these two classes of donors.

There is some justification for the charge flung in the face of the reformer that he should first of all reform himself. Too many are oblivious of their own characteristic shortcomings; too many are conspicuous examples of partial failure because of one-sided individual development. We do well to attack with all the weapons at our command, and with all our might,

the evils of society, but we should first of all remember that it is as individuals that others will regard us; that our words will have weight only as we bear ourselves like men; that our personal usefulness is apt to be in the same ratio as our sense of personal responsibility. To reformers above all others is this lesson important; the carrier of the message must show himself superior to the faults and foibles that society, because it sees only superficialities, learns the soonest to detect and despise, and, despising the messenger for his defects of mind or character, grows to ignore the message, or justifies its rejection by indicating the individual's deficiencies.

And we are now brought to the immediate situation in this city of New York. In 1897 the Citizens' Union spent $156,000 to defeat Tammany Hall-and was itself defeated. One hundred and fifty-six thousand dollars! How Croker must have smiled at that! Why, Tammany gives that and more to its district leaders to spend in ways that will do the most good. The foes of Tammany, rich men having much at stake, gave, some of them, as much as $100, after a good deal of persuasion. The Tammany district leaders will spend that in one saloon in drinks for "the boys." One hundred and fifty-six thousand dollars to defeat an organization whose power rests upon public franchises in its gift or under its protection amounting in value to hundreds of millions!

Oh, it will be said, surely the expenditure of money by honorable, upright men in the manner Tammany expends it is not to be thought of. Well, how does Tammany distribute the funds it raises to influence and carry elections? It cannot be denied that the greater portion is spent legitimately, and of that which is not strictly so spent a very small proportion goes in the direct purchase of votes. It does not go in that way because it is really not needed. It is not the purchasable electorate that keeps the Tammany organization in power. A great deal of money expended is used to quicken and maintain enthusiasm among "the boys"; and it by no means follows that this necessarily involves its corrupt use.

But the chief point these honorable gentlemen who are op

posing Tammany should bear in mind is this: If a thorough opposition organization to Tammany is to be kept alive, it must be supported by generous contributions. If New York is worth rescuing it is worth rescuing at a pecuniary cost, and if the Tammany opposition cannot match Tammany's expenditure dollar for dollar the reform movement will lack vitality. If reform is worth anything it is worth something in dollars and cents.

And then it will be of service to our good friends to inquire how it comes about that Tammany is willing and able to spend such large sums of money. A great deal is raised by that species of police blackmail which has always prevailed in this and other great cities. For that there is no one to blame but the community itself, which has made the inevitable vices and many of the harmless follies of men illegal. Another source of these contributions is to be found in the assessment of clerks and officeholders, but for this the community is again to blame in making public salaries higher than private salaries for the same grades of service. But this explains only a small part of the money after all. There are "bosses" who control nominations; there are men, the holders of valuable franchises, who are interested in getting the wrong kind of men nominated, and they are willing to pay for it. And right here is the answer to the New York World's question as to where Croker "got it." The larger source of bossism and most of the corruption of city government is to be sought for in the men behind Croker.

There are some people who think that reform means vicehunting, and that the city's redemption is accomplished when you close up the saloons at one o'clock at night, or change a pool-room where people may openly enter and wager their money on a horse race into a club-room where they may do the same thing in greater secrecy. How very melancholy it all is! We will have corrupt government as long as people do not understand that the true function of government is not the reformation of the individual but the protection of rights. Every man feels instinctively that he has a right to drink as

he likes, to spend his money as he likes; he resents the impertinence of government interference and in the main he is right. Grown men will be not better men, but worse, and public administration more corrupt, by every renewed attempt to suppress or regulate the inevitable vices and follies of men, nearly all of which spring from misgovernment and the denial of man's inalienable rights. JOSEPH DANA Miller.

New York.

THE ETHICS OF THE LAND QUESTION.

THE

HE thought of our times presents some very hopeful aspects. It is coming to be more generally recognized that Christianity addresses itself to man both individually and collectively; that it inquires of his ideals and obligations not only as a man but as a citizen; that it calls upon him to be true to his best self and no less true to his brother, and to all those multiplied obligations involved in modern civilization.

In the ideal, all activities are prompted by an ethical motive, and we may be thankful that the call of humanity to-day is for a faith which addresses itself to the righting of wrong in the community as well as in the individual. This is but one expression of that more enlightened, more worthy conception of religious duty which is dawning upon the world.

In the effort to solve social problems this better faith must be clear and unequivocal, and our devotion to its guidance must be consistent and continuous. So long as there remains a social problem unsolved, a grievance unredressed, so long will it be most fitting for all philanthropic and broad-minded men to inquire as to their immediate duty respecting them, and the best means of that duty's fulfilment. Present-day discussion emphasizes a truth, which always has been recognized by the world's best leadership, viz., that the adjustment of all problems, whether communal or international, must ultimately be referred to the court of justice. Inquiries as to expediency are not to be admitted in clearly defined issues between right and wrong. Truth has no sufferance for error. This was Christ's supreme emphasis, which the world is so unwilling to accept. Protest may not be immediately effective, but its assertion must be swift, its maintenance unswerving.

Our theme, "the ethics of the land question," is very satisfying in its terms, for it is intuitively felt to be fundamental,